Shaming the bottom-feeders.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I forget who said it but:
"Nobody calls you greedy for wanting other people's money, only for wanting to keep your own."


On-topic: Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the waste and abuse in the system, though?

That might not possible, you might be able to minimize it, but remove that is properly not possible.
 
That might not possible, you might be able to minimize it, but remove that is properly not possible.

True, it would be virtually impossible to eliminate all of those who abuse the system and the waste involved.

The OP seems to be under the impression that the people on welfare care that they're taking hard-working people's money. Certainly some of them do, and those are the ones who work hard to become self-sufficient, but those aren't the people who are going to be on welfare for months, and these people don't need to be constantly reminded of their benefactors. However, those who don't care and just want "a free lunch," likely won't care, regardless of how much you rub it in their face.
 
On-topic: Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the waste and abuse in the system, though?
What do you think was done decades ago for the most part?
 
Using shame as a social incentive is an interesting idea but I doubt the conditions are met, nowadays, any place, for it to work properly.

Shame is opposed to honour. In a society that honour structures (e.g. feudal), then shame could, conceivably, be a driving force (even though a negative one).
However, honour has long lost its place in our societies, as a sentiment, as a value, as a concept. Honourless societies are also shameless and, thus, shame can't ever be a driving force to them.

Homo economicus... do you feel shame or honour? No, of course not, for you are rational and driven by wealth.

ps: and don't mistake pride for honour ;)
 
I forget who said it but:
"Nobody calls you greedy for wanting other people's money, only for wanting to keep your own."


Then the rich should stop taking other people's money and let them keep their own. :p


On-topic: Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the waste and abuse in the system, though?


We keep trying that. But then idiots keep trying to enact policies like drug testing and shaming the recipients.
 
I dunno why you'd laugh at that? I certainly factor meals into the compensation package for my jobs.

You've obviously never eaten the stuff the Army calls 'food'.

What would be the consequence of coming up positive?

They change your degree to liberal arts until you get clean.

And I love the 'the rich steal your money' thing that's going on here. Very funny indeed.
 
Presumably it at least saves you a couple dollars per day on coffee?

Army coffee is the kind of coffee a spoon will stand up in without support...and then melt if its left in the coffee too long.

I rather pay for generic Folgers and a cheap ass coffee maker and drink that to be honest.

Again, imagine the worst restaurant food you've ever had..... and realize its worse than that.

I has gotten better in recent years, but man, it's the kind of stuff that would make Gordon Ramsey go ballistic. It's pretty bad. For example, when the Army initially came out with it's field ration meal; the MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) we always call them Meals Refused by Ethiopians.
 
Proving you don't need drugs to engage in altering perception of reality.

I'm pretty sure that doing drugs is a pre-requisite for a liberal arts degree, Jolly. But I don't disagree with your premise in practice.

He-ey! I have fond memories of the dehydrated pork! And the chocolate paste we used to make by grouping our accessory packets together... just, well okay not yummy but hey, it worked. :D

EDIT: Ahh, memories! http://www.mreinfo.com/reviews/mre/1982-pork-patty.html

Yeah, the Pork Pattie was pretty awful. Only thing I ever thought that was worth eating was the John Wayne bar.

And it's sad, 'cause young soldiers today have no idea wth that was.
 
2 of the 4 steps in the legal research and writing process work better if you are under the influence. The other two steps require sobriety.
 
2 of the 4 steps in the legal research and writing process work better if you are under the influence. The other two steps require sobriety.

Reminds me of an old episode of 'WKRP in Cincinnati' where one DJ got high and the other got drunk and they measured reaction times. Funny stuff. :goodjob:
 
I remember that episode, just not the 2 participants

anyway, seems to me like a violation of the 4th amendment probable cause requirement and its unreasonable.
 
I remember that episode, just not the 2 participants

anyway, seems to me like a violation of the 4th amendment probable cause requirement and its unreasonable.

Doesn't apply, its not an investigation, search or seizure. Again, its voluntary based upon reciprocity of those receiving aid. Nothing more than simple Quid Pro Quo.
 
seems the knee jerk reaction is 'drug test them' while there are probaly more unemployed sleeping in after staying up all night playing computer games, should we start checking their PC time, in case they are spending our hard earned tax dollars on games, maybe their libary cards too, to make sure they are not reading to many books every week...
 
Sure. While we are at it, lets add in those with Government guaranteed student loans still outstanding.
I mean we gotta be consistent, right? :D

But I though Republicans are against any sort of "background checks" especially for "freedom fighters" in Iran or Afghanistan. 2nd Admendment rights and all that ?
 
Doesn't apply, its not an investigation, search or seizure. Again, its voluntary based upon reciprocity of those receiving aid. Nothing more than simple Quid Pro Quo.

these drug tests are investigations searching for and seizing evidence of illegal drug use without probable cause, getting a subsidy doesn't nullify the 4th amendment
 
I agree; however, the problem is identifying those truly in need as opposed to the leech that just simply wants to suck away the life of the rest of us for no return or gain.
People can be on drugs and still truly in need. To make aid contingent on that is going to prevent it from going to people who need it, and isn't going to stop those who don't need it.

You're not going to save money because you have to enforce this with drug testing programs, and you're going to cut off people who truly need the assistance from receiving it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom